What I am trying to say is that “nice guys” both established, and aspiring, have more in common with well-trained dogs than human beings. They can jump through many obstacle courses, learn amazing new tricks and be loyal companions. But at the end of the day they are just that.. dogs who serve others for meager rewards.
In contrast to that, “bad boys” are in it for themselves even if they are not especially successful. They possess autonomous agency, something that “nice guys” lack. While women may not explicitly think in those terms, it is pretty obvious to them that “nice guys” are semi-retarded voluntary slaves. Sure, they can often make decent money and enrich the woman they are with. But is it ever possible for that woman to continuously overlook the fact that she is with an easily manipulated, servile and spineless human being. Can you really get turned on by an anthropomorphic pet dog?
What do you think? Comments?
The viewpoint that “bad boys” are far more attractive to women than “nice guys” has become pervasive enough to be considered almost mainstream. I would even go so far as to say that it is the dominant viewpoint in younger age-groups. As many of you also know, a lot of ink and electrons have been spent on trying to understand why women prefer “bad boys” over “nice guys”. Some have tried to explain this phenomena by invoking deterministic scientific-sounding concepts such as evolutionary psychology and hypergamy. Others see it is a moral failing of secular societies, secondary effects of feminism or lack of long-term planning etc. In my opinion, all such explanations are ex post facto rationalizations rather than objective explanations. Moreover, they almost willingly ignore or gloss over a very important question.
Why should women prefer “good guys” over “bad boys”?
The conventional reasoning for why “good guys” are…
View original post 863 more words